I would guess this video was done sometime in the 1990s.  Matthew Hall discusses his personal connection to DS and his experience working on the 1990/91 series.  This is one of the few occurrences of which I am aware in which someone close to the show has actually described Dan Curtis as "the head writer" of the series.  I still think DS (the original series) was so good *in spite of* Dan's input... people who are really close to a project often take a different view from those who are spectators--or have a more objective vantage point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WKA3CztzUY

G.

and it just occurred to me that perhaps Juliana was trying to acquire some BarnaDepp DNA via the most natural means available to her... lol.

G.

Hi Patti, the DS sets were designed and built by Sy Tomashoff for DS in the Spring of 1966 (presumably May-June).  Nobody has bothered to quote a year for this Twlight Zone episode but from what Midnite wrote it sounds as if it was done in the 1950s.

I often see old house sets on ALFRED HITCHCOCK and BORIS KARLOFF'S THRILLER that seem reminiscent of the look Sy drew upon for Collinwood, but I think it's just a general concept of what a creepy old house would look like as established in the horror and suspense genres of the mid 20th century.

According to MB, set elements from DS were re-used on other ABC soaps after DS ended, notably ONE LIFE TO LIVE.

G.

Hi Patti, I think the clothing for the 1990 DS actually got closer to what was worn in 1790 New England.  I seem to recall having read that the costumes for the 18th century sequences in the original Sixties shows came from work that had commissioned for a production set in the mid 18th century.  I'm not an authority and it would be interesting to know for sure.

I always think the Countess's clothing in the 1967-68 shows was way out of date, more 1760s than 1790s, although I love how Grayson looks in the clothing.

The main 18th century costume that just does not work for me is what they gave Barnabas to wear.  I'm sure it was researched and was accurate but it just looks awful on camera, particularly in combination with the wig and the makeup.

Of course tastes differ--just giving my opinion.

I'm not surprised at all by the noms since "non acting" seems to be the preferred form of "acting" these days."

I feel a rant coming on and it has zilch to do with the film or the show so I'll stop.

cheers, G.

As regards Chloe's performance as Carolyn, she just seemed to be stoned and bored throughout the entire film (until the ending, obviously).  I personally found it very one note.  I know others found it fascinating, I am just giving my viewpoint here in the interest of diversity.

I blame the director, not the actress.  I haven't seen her other work but have been told she is a very gifted child.

She's so unlike any version of Carolyn Stoddard I have ever seen that I frankly can't even think of the character as "Carolyn."  I wish a different name had been used.

G.

Welcome to the Sublime Ranks of this Most Celestial Sphere!

winking,

G.